Lesperance & Ors v Elizabeth (CS 151/2018) [2022] SCSC 1070 (8 February 2022)

Lesperance & Ors v Elizabeth (CS 151/2018) [2022] SCSC 1070 (8 February 2022)

The Plaintiffs, as co-owners, had capacity to lease the property and sue, especially as the first Plaintiff was appointed fiduciary. The Defendant was aware of the Plaintiffs' status and is estopped from denying their capacity. There was no evidence that the lease was against public policy or that planning...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] SCSC 1070
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Helene Lesperance; 2nd Plaintiff: Ronelle Lesperance; 3rd Plaintiff: Ron Lesperance; 4th Plaintiff: Ronda Lesperance; Defendant: Maria Elizabeth
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
8 February 2022
Case Number
CS 151/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs; counter-claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Lease Agreements, Co Ownership, Capacity to Contract, Public Policy, Counter Claim, Damages
Source Language
english
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Lease Agreements Co Ownership Capacity to Contract Public Policy +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helene Lesperance

1st Plaintiff

Ronelle Lesperance

2nd Plaintiff

Ron Lesperance

3rd Plaintiff

Ronda Lesperance

4th Plaintiff

Maria Elizabeth

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiffs had locus standi and capacity to sue and enter into the lease agreement
  2. 2 Whether the promise of lease was against public policy and invalid
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant was liable for unpaid rent, damages, and other sums claimed

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs, as co-owners, had capacity to lease the property and sue, especially as the first Plaintiff was appointed fiduciary. The Defendant was aware of the Plaintiffs' status and is estopped from denying their capacity. There was no evidence that the lease was against public policy or that planning permission was required at the time. The Defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay rent and causing damage to the property. The Defendant's counter-claim failed for lack of proof. Judgment is entered for the Plaintiffs for unpaid rent, damages, surveyor's fees, and utility bills, with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiffs; counter-claim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant to pay unpaid rent from 25th June 2015 to March 2016 in the sum of SCR 350,000.00
  • Defendant to pay surveyor's fees in the sum of SCR 7,500.00